That’s a silly mission. There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others. The short term goal shouldn’t be to build a new wheel, it should be experiment and figure out which of the existing wheels actually role. Once that’s done, you can go about inventing new techniques, but starting from scratch is just a silly way to go about it.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons? Are they told it openly at the beginning, or is it just a tiny footnote on page 98?
On the other hand, if the technique is not exactly the same, and CFAR believes that the modifications provide a significant bonus, then maybe the new name is deserved. Perhaps also if the old name is so inconvenient that people have problems remembering it and connecting the label with the referent. Also, sometimes there exist so many versions of some old technique, that the label doesn’t connect to anything specific (ask all those people who “meditate” what precisely they do; everyone seems to use this word however they wish).
Having to reinvent old techniques seems like not doing your homework. (How many other old techniques are you going to reinvent in the next five years? How much funding do you need for that?)
I can imagine CFAR having good reasons for what they do. But I can also imagine them to suffer a “rationalist” arrogant version of Dunning–Kruger effect; something like: “Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing I could learn from them, it’s all just mumbo-jumbo… now let me think and invent my own mumbo-jumbo which will be more rational, because a more rational person—albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it”. (I am working at the frontiers of science / You are doing pseudoscience / They are superstitious.)
I would need more specific data to make a conclusion here. Looking forward to a public textbook.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons?
That assumes that the main point of the lesson is to teach specific techniques. That doesn’t seem to be the case from what I understand by talking to Val about CFAR’s strategy at the LW community camp in Berlin (I wasn’t at an actual CFAR workshop).
Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing
CFAR does happen a bunch of scientists who are domain experts in their advisory council. They read scientific papers. I don’t think it’s fair to say that they “pay no attention to the domain experts”.
albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it
What makes you think that the CFAR folks are total beginners?
There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others.
Are you really suggesting CFAR should pick up techniques from religious practices and import them as is without reinventing them and stripping out all the paranormal stuff?
In terms of religious practices, I think CFAR could play the same role that EG The Center For Mindfulness does at UMASS Medical Center. They figure out which wheels from zen practices actually role, and which don’t.
That’s a silly mission. There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others. The short term goal shouldn’t be to build a new wheel, it should be experiment and figure out which of the existing wheels actually role. Once that’s done, you can go about inventing new techniques, but starting from scratch is just a silly way to go about it.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons? Are they told it openly at the beginning, or is it just a tiny footnote on page 98?
On the other hand, if the technique is not exactly the same, and CFAR believes that the modifications provide a significant bonus, then maybe the new name is deserved. Perhaps also if the old name is so inconvenient that people have problems remembering it and connecting the label with the referent. Also, sometimes there exist so many versions of some old technique, that the label doesn’t connect to anything specific (ask all those people who “meditate” what precisely they do; everyone seems to use this word however they wish).
Having to reinvent old techniques seems like not doing your homework. (How many other old techniques are you going to reinvent in the next five years? How much funding do you need for that?)
I can imagine CFAR having good reasons for what they do. But I can also imagine them to suffer a “rationalist” arrogant version of Dunning–Kruger effect; something like: “Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing I could learn from them, it’s all just mumbo-jumbo… now let me think and invent my own mumbo-jumbo which will be more rational, because a more rational person—albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it”. (I am working at the frontiers of science / You are doing pseudoscience / They are superstitious.)
I would need more specific data to make a conclusion here. Looking forward to a public textbook.
That assumes that the main point of the lesson is to teach specific techniques. That doesn’t seem to be the case from what I understand by talking to Val about CFAR’s strategy at the LW community camp in Berlin (I wasn’t at an actual CFAR workshop).
CFAR does happen a bunch of scientists who are domain experts in their advisory council. They read scientific papers. I don’t think it’s fair to say that they “pay no attention to the domain experts”.
What makes you think that the CFAR folks are total beginners?
Are you really suggesting CFAR should pick up techniques from religious practices and import them as is without reinventing them and stripping out all the paranormal stuff?
In terms of religious practices, I think CFAR could play the same role that EG The Center For Mindfulness does at UMASS Medical Center. They figure out which wheels from zen practices actually role, and which don’t.